Key findings

There are important factions within the government who would like to side with the land activists against Western agricultural interests. They have done in other cases and will do so in this case. A former government official told us: “The issue has become an emblem for those who argue that rural people should be respected and protected and that the law must be shown to work to their benefit.”

The new agriculture minister is more attuned to the needs of foreign investors, but he is inexperienced and his wider influence within the government is limited. We were told: “He is not a political heavyweight, unlike his predecessor, and some of his initial press interviews have been flaky, reflecting his inexperience in dealing with tough questioning under pressure.” However, another source close to the government said: “I know that he has been building alliances by reaching out quietly to key opinion shapers in the private sector. His ability to deliver on big questions should not be underestimated. With the president’s backing he should help to ensure that the interests of private sector-led agro-industry are heard in the run up to the next election.”

The president is being pulled in many directions politically. He sees the political advantage in supporting the cause of smallholders, but he also understands the needs of agribusiness, so if the land has been acquired legally and without any coercion then he is unlikely to support an unjustified claim. We were told: “The president has been clear in cabinet meetings, in meetings with the ministry of agriculture, and in presidential directives that those who legitimately hold their land titles should not fear. It is only those who spuriously or illegitimately acquired the land, say through deceit or duress, who will be put under pressure.”

We were also told by a source close to the administration that the president sees agribusiness as a key driver of growth, food self-sufficiency, and exports. This source said: “The president is very much of this view. That's why many of the country’s richest companies have invested in this area in the last few years. The government is continuing strongly to encourage such investment.”

The supreme court insists it is not influenced by the government. It also has a conservative bias and a likely lack of sympathy for unjustified land claims. A senior source also said that “at the moment I don’t think there is a possibility that the president will want to influence this case or any other land-related case”.

However, consensus among legal experts is that that overlapping legislation and rivalry between different courts makes the legal position on land title exceptionally complex.

The claimants have been effective in gaining publicity for their claim and are getting NGO and public support, but none of the principal claimants has a special relationship with government ministers or the president.

The leader of the claimants is seen as a high-profile campaigner for land reform with the same level of access to ministry officials as other activists. As a longstanding ministry of agriculture official told us: “Our position is that he is a leader of the rural workers but has no special connection to anyone at the ministry or any high-level official in general. Nor did he or other rural worker leaders have much access to the previous government.”

A diplomatic source who monitors the land question said that for the claimants and their supporters, politics is as important as money. He said: “The length of time this claim has been running and the tenacity with which it is being pursued suggests that politics is high up the agenda. This dispute is part of a long and wider political battle being fought over land reform.”

If the case gets to the highest court it may be judged on its merits (court insiders insist that it will be), but a number of conflicting political forces will be at work. Also, whatever the merits of the case, the legal uncertainties remain significant. If the case were to go with the claimants, the government would be likely to sit back and let events take their course.

Faced by so much legal and political uncertainty, but in the reasonable expectation that the president does not want to betray his underlying pro-business philosophy, the best option appears to be a waiting game while using all time gained to keep on reminding the government that there would be a price to pay if the case were not to be judged solely on its merits and free from political considerations. Much more and better work also needs to be done to counter the claimants’ PR campaign.

There are many powerful reasons why the case should be de-politicised and judged solely on its merits, but they have not been made strongly enough either at government level or with public opinion. There is still all to play for in the three areas that matter: within the government, in the legal sphere, and in the ‘court of public opinion’. The threat is significant, but it can be countered.